On 14/06/2011 shortman wrote:>On 14/06/2011 ajfclark wrote:>>On 14/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>>>Without regulation and "do-gooders", you might find Arapiles still looking>>like it did 30 years ago.>>>>Something like this:>>>>On 12/05/2010 kieranl wrote:>>>This image shows the vegetation below the right Watchtower face in 1977.>>>>>>>>>Things have come a long way!
Surely this was just after the fire that burnt araplies out . the huge tree at the foot of the organ pipes burnt etc . the vegetation yhat is now present is a result of that fire (all the wattles )
Undoubtable these will be replaced with the controlled burns which will be done over future years >.
Government policy states that all parks etc Must have planned burns to protect against wildfire . With all the usage and numbers of people at arapiles the Rangers will have to have a time line for these burns and do everything to implement such burns . Failure to do so would open the government up to litigation in event of any loses due to wildfire . the other part of the park away from the mount are unlikely to have many visitor so probably can get away with no action but not around the cliffs and camping ground of arapiles

On 14/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>I'm refraining>from telling the inappropriate crap story I've heard about Jeremy, although>it has struck me as kind of ironic.

Allow me the pleasure. I was at Buffalo sometime around the end of 2008 (I'm sure Clarky can provide the exact date), climbing at Wall of China near the Horn. I was climbing with 'D', who I'd only met a couple of hours previous. Looking up anxiously at the forthcoming crux, while on the belay ledge of pitch 2, I was faced with a desperate urge to crap. Thank god there was a small gum tree and some dirt there! But the ledge wasn't that big, and poor D was within arms length of a stranger taking a dump.

When I'd finished burying the offending turd, wiped my ass with a gum leaf and pulled up my pants, I turned back to D, suitably red faced. Imagine my embarrassment as a rousing cheer rose from the tourist lookout opposite the gully, and someone yelled 'I always wondered how you guys did that!!'

Good times. Amazingly, we actually went climbing together several times after that incident!!

Anyway alls well that ends well. Nobody harmed, and I onsighted my first 19 (Lucinda *).

Now, back to fire haters pushing their agenda, and linking the park looking wonderful with increased regulation.... after a year of good rainfall. Actually, screw that noise - I'm taking Kieren's advice and sending Parks something myself, with photos and facts.

Setup signs at entrance to park, both ends of closed road, SE and NE corners of pines, near both toilets.

Walk around campsite in evenings and pick up rubbish/loo paper etc. Clean up old sponges at washup station. Politely point out to anyone collecting firewood that it is illegal and damaging to the environment. Offer to sell firewood to anyone who wants it.

Organise to buy firewood as required from some local farmer or in horsham.

Anyone who accuses you of profiteering can go buy their firewood elsewhere.

That's caus you're not at the red anymore, mindlessly trashed and needing to fill in time whilst you recover and resist getting back on again to demonstrate that you really are still a wobbly bag of jelly.>Are you still at the Red? Have you tried a sweet potato and roast pork>pizza - possibly the best pizza ever?

On 15/06/2011 nmonteith wrote:>On 14/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>>And Hero, it's ok, I'm getting plenty of climbing in. It's just that>>I'm getting so nailed that I'm taking more rest days then i've ever had>>on a climbing trip before! >>Welcome to the Red! That place just trashes you after a few days. You>need a week off to recover from one big day

A week! Fűck! I don't have a week to take off ... After 3 weeks here on a 2 on 1 off schedule, i am pretty knackered ... but the weather's really good this week, i don't want to take a few days off! Is the New any more gentle on the body?

On 15/06/2011 One Day Hero wrote:>On 14/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>>I don't get what it is around here with all the hassling of people who>>are trying to stand up for the environment and the diverse range of people>>in the world. Somehow this all get bagged out as "environmental do gooders">>and "politically correct". Is this the new version of tall poppy syndrome?>>>Nah, but you have to find a balance somehow. The best environmental outcome>for the mount would be to ban climbing..............since no one on this>site seems to support that idea, we are left to find a compromise between>whats good for the environment and whats good for climbers.

So conpromising on a few things to ensure climbing and camping remain seems totally reasonable then!>>Wendy, you seem to lean rather far towards the 'environmental concern'>end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean everyone to your right is a>self-obsessed vandal...........besides, I didn't hear any complaints while>I was destroying the vegetation on Karma Sutra, prior to your ascent ;)

I don't remember the Kama Sutra destructo rampage, but I do remember you hacking out the prickly bush on In Lieu ... which I had just climbed over on lead, so maybe you just need to toughen the fűck up a bit Damo???

lacto>Surely this was just after the fire that burnt araplies out . the huge>tree at the foot of the organ pipes burnt etc . the vegetation yhat is>now present is a result of that fire (all the wattles )

Last I knew about it, wattles were short lived trees, so I reckon claiming that trees in 2011 are the result of regrowth from 1974 is a little enthusiastic - how often to acacias live to 37 years?

>Undoubtable these will be replaced with the controlled burns which will>be done over future years >.>Government policy states that all parks etc Must have planned burns to>protect against wildfire . With all the usage and numbers of people at>arapiles the Rangers will have to have a time line for these burns and>do everything to implement such burns . Failure to do so would open the>government up to litigation in event of any loses due to wildfire . the>other part of the park away from the mount are unlikely to have many visitor>so probably can get away with no action but not around the cliffs and camping>ground of arapiles
odh>Ummmm, would that photo have been taken 4 years after the fire which totally burnt the park out? I appreciate the environmental work done by local climbers, but claiming credit for natural regrowth after a huge fire is a little bit cheeky.

I didn't see a lot of that natural regrowth when I first came to the mt in 1991. Completely without the aid of fire, but certainly with the aid of planting, fencing, weeding, watering and track closures, the areas immediately around the campground have come a long way since then.

On 15/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>A week! Fűck! I don't have a week to take off ... After 3 weeks here on>a 2 on 1 off schedule, i am pretty knackered

I was on the 10 days on, one day off schedule. I felt like I was on a prison chain gaing my the end. I could hardly lift my arms above my head and every finger was taped.

> ... but the weather's really>good this week, i don't want to take a few days off! Is the New any more>gentle on the body?

YES!! If you haven't been there yet - GO THERE! The climbing style is way less thuggy. It is an Arapiles clone, but with more bolted stuff. The New rock is much smoother and the routes aren't about fighting the pump - but more about solving tricky sequences and wiggling in trad. I was like a kid in a candy shop - it was like the first time I went to Arapiles and there was this endless smorgasbord of the best routes I'd ever seen. It's always way less crowded and the rest day activities are more civilized (the town is very nice - a couple of good restaurants and cafes.)

i hope the forum contributors who are against a shorter campfire season will put as much effort into their counter-proposals as they have into their chockstone posts. it would be great if all voices could be heard by the relevant body so that if/when there is a policy change people can be satisfied that all sides of the argument were heard before a decision was made.

as an outlet for voicing opinion, I'd like to say that over the queen's birthday my party of three were continually dismayed to see whole dead trees, as well as limbs and anything deemed 'dead' removed from the fenced off area near the toilet block at the bottom of the pines. This happened consistently over the four days we were there. The particular party removing the wood also took to chopping it first thing in the morning, during the day, and at intervals throughout the night. The main offenders were visiting from interstate and overseas.

i am not against being able to have fires at the mount but something needs to be done about the collection of firewood from around the park.

in general, people need to continue to be considerate of how their actions affect those around them. we all enjoy the plants, birds and animals that create a refuge amongst the wheatfields. i also enjoy having the toilet block shielded from view by the fenced off revegetation area. and in addition to the noise of the wood being removed from the revegetation area, we were also kept awake and then woken up by the loud, echoing sound of an axe for four days.

perhaps we should have approached the keepers of the continuous, large, ill-gotten campfire to explain to them our concerns and to see if a compromise could have been reached.

a continuous campfire at the mount appears to be a growing trend, and I support any efforts to ensure that these fires are not fuelled by wood from within the State Park.

On 16/06/2011 fingernailsarepretty wrote:>i hope the forum contributors who are against a shorter campfire season>will put as much effort into their counter-proposals as they have into>their chockstone posts.

>>perhaps we should have approached the keepers of the continuous, large,>ill-gotten campfire to explain to them our concerns and to see if a compromise>could have been reached.

No offense, but... Duh! However, thanks for bothering to write on this forum and I dont want to discourage your participation. But I think you realize that, yes you should have talked to them if you were concerned.I think it is obvious that parks cannot be expected to enforce every violation. You should not feel in personal danger to confront people who are inappropriately collecting wood and you did not say you were afraid. So then how can you expect people on this forum to do anything proactive when you refuse to do it yourself?

I hope this does not sound like a lecture but you point out one group who spent four days collecting this wood. No one else. And you did not confront them. So according to your anecdote, if you would have confronted this one group on the first day you noticed the wood being removed, it could have prevented much more wood collection. If you had confronted them and they were violent jerks, it is likely that having an "official" fire ban would not stop them anyway.

I dont see collecting wood as the problem some people are making it but to answer your question about counter-proposals, just read the dozens of suggestions given in this thread. Suggestions that were apparently dismissed without trial by the AAC.

I got an email from Louise recently and I don't think she would mind if I shared it:

Regarding Arapiles, it's visitor use and visitor habits:
Arapiles is a very small park (1000 acres).
There are a large number of visitors (80,000 visitor days/year).
A large proportion of those visitors collect wood from the park (despite regulations stating that firewood must be brought into the park).
Many visitors have inappropriately large fires with firewood collected from the park.
Many visitors make fires in the fuel stove only area, and create dozens of new fire places.

Regarding biodiversity:
Western Victoria has only 15% of land set aside as public reserves.
Most of those reserves represent a narrow range of EVCs (ecological vegetation communities), and many EVCs are very poorly reserved.
For example, native grasslands and grassy woodlands have been 99.5% depleted from the original 2 million hectares of lowland grasslands of south-eastern Australia.
Mt Arapiles has a small but significant remnant of native grassland and grassy woodland.
Many grassland, grassy woodland and woodland species are in decline across western Victoria, including birds, reptiles, mammals, insects and amphibians.

Biodiversity is compromised and depleted by firewood collection.

As you correctly observe, Arapiles is world class rock climbing destination. Decreasing illegal firewood collection will not diminish climbers' climbing pleasure.
I have noted that wood fires have been banned for some time at the camping sites at Whitewater Wall in Tasmania and at Frog Buttress in Queensland.
I have recently camped and climbed in both places, and observed that all climbers were supporting the bans.

Arapiles is the only home for untold numbers of plants and animals, whose survival directly or indirectly depends on dead wood on the ground.
Parks Victoria, the AAC and Cliffcare represent climbers who are proud to go climbing without depleting biodiversity at Arapiles. (Original was was typed in bold)
--------------------------
Basically, the whole argument rests on "wood collection decreases biodiversity and banning fires decreases wood collection therefore ban fires."

I have already given a long winded reply to this reactionary solution to a perceived problem using questionable logic. The AAC is moving from “gathering firewood decreases biodiversity” to “climbers at Arapiles are destroying the biodiversity at Arapiles by collecting firewood and therefore recreational use needs to be curbed” and this is excessive and unsubstantiated. My main point was that biodiversity is not the only concern of the park. Camping in the recreational zones is a priority and fires in those zones are a big part of recreation.

She asserts that "many" people collect wood. This is contentious. However, the giant hole in the move to ban fires is that absolutely nothing else has been attempted to curb the collection of wood. In the last two weeks there have been dozens of suggestions and a great deal of discussion about the perceived problem of wood collection and what to do about it. Supposedly the ‘committee’ sat around dismissing out of hand all of the ideas chockstoners came up with , not to mention even coming to the very contentious decision that biodiversity is being threatened at some disastrous level enough to take the extreme and final measure of increasing the ban. (Those who are saying we should be happy they are even letting us camp there, please come back to reality.)

Also the bold emphasis was from the original. I think its clear she is making an ‘us against them’, fire ban-conservationist-park saving-climbers, against the rest. No discussion is asked for. No dialogue. No involvement with the users of the park. The AAC speaks for all “biodiversity non-depleting climbers” (whoever they are!) Cliffcare and supposedly Parks Victoria! What she is saying is “don’t bother trying to stop us, we represent everyone who matters and we have already made the decision no matter what you think”.

Well, just the way this whole thing went down gives me a sour taste. This is the process for permanent changes made to the best climbing camp in the world? I am sending in a petition to Parks Victoria to challenge this proposed ban. The Arapiles Advisory Committee is wrong in this matter and they went about pushing their environmental agenda in a belligerent manner that I hope they won’t affect in the future.

The notion that "a large proportion collect firewood in the park" is bullshit. The correct term is "a small proportion".

A large percentage of users in the 80's and early 90's used fires made from wood collected in the park. But that has now changed since the main offenders have upped stumps and moved into Natimuk. Ever since then the regrowth has been remarkable.

Still the claim of a1000 acre park is being put forward . I believe between 1800 and 2000 acres though surely should be expressed in hectares . The camp area high wood pillage area would only be 20 to 40 acres .Nobody could dispute this area is being stripped of wood and must stop but somehow this is being equated to ruining the whole of the park . I would have thought the area of greatest intensity of native species would be in the highest water receival areas ie at the foot of all the cliffs and in the gullies used for access . stop climbing ?? Burning wood is sustainable and the carbon involved is in a fairly short term cycle of maybe 100 years or so , what is not sustainable is the fuel extracted from deposits of millions of years ago being burnt to get to arapiles or where ever and provide the lifestyle that most of us enjoy . Extremely short sighted to drive to arapiles then freeze without a fire and congratulate yourself on not producing carbon. As a general rule nearly every where in victoria that was cleared has had a vast improvement in tree cover and area for native animals .